New York and Ohio will each lose two congressional seats. Eight states will lose one congressional district in reapportionment: Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan and New Jersey.

The population shifts to Republican-leaning states are clearly good news for the GOP. How many net House seats will Republicans gain from redistricting? Which House members will need to battle each other for survival? Will the change in Electoral College math hurt President Obama's re-election chances?

And should state legislators be removed from the redistricting process, to avoid the inherent conflict of interest of politicians drawing district lines for other politicians?

Republican gains will depend on how — or more precisely, where — the states redraw the district lines. But if you assume a net congressional gain or loss based on President Obama’s state-by-state win/loss record in 2008, then the Republicans stand to pick up six congressional seats and the Democrats will have a net loss of six congressional seats.

This shift in population will certainly hurt the president’s reelection chances. Obama won eight of the 10 states that are losing seats and won only three of the eight states gaining seats. In the state that gains the most seats – Texas – he lost decisively.

When states lose a seat, it can trigger a political game of musical chairs. In New York and Ohio, the loss of two seats in each state raises the likelihood of internecine electoral combat among incumbents to retain the remaining seats.

The biggest problem with redistricting is not that politicians draw the lines. After all, if we don’t like what they do, we can vote them out of office. Moreover, states can limit abuses by setting standards for redistricting. For example, they can require that redrawn districts respect city and county lines or that lawmakers keep districts as geographically compact as possible.

Supposedly “nonpolitical” redistricting commissions actually just move politics from out in the open to behind closed doors. Their results depend almost entirely on the selection criteria used to appoint commission members, and those criteria are often biased. Appointed commissioners are not answerable to the voting public, and that very insulation from the electorate makes them undemocratic.

The real problem in redistricting is the way in which the Voting Rights Act has been abused and manipulated by the Justice Department and certain advocacy groups, with the unfortunate assistance of the federal courts, to make race a predominant factor in redistricting.

Racial gerrymandering is legally and morally indefensible, even though both major political parties have endorsed it in the past. Democrats and Republicans like it because they think it creates more safe seats for their parties. But it segregates us politically on the basis of race, and that is damaging to the long-term interests and cohesiveness of the United States as a nation.

Ken FeltmanChairman Radnor Inc.; Past president of the International Association of Political Consultants :

The most significant November election gains for Republicans came not in Congress but in state-level elections. The GOP swamped the Democrats and rolled up the biggest gains for either party since 1938. Republicans will hold the governorships in traditional battlegrounds states: Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. The heavy losses have caused some Democratic officeholders to switch to the Republican Party. The switchers hope that, as Republicans, they can regain lost seniority and hold their seats in two years.

Amazingly, the Democrats look like a regional party - alive and well on the coasts but nearly wiped out in the Heartland and the South. The Alabama legislature is in Republican hands for the first time since Reconstruction. Republicans took the North Carolina Senate for the first time since 1870. The Minnesota Senate went Republican for the first time ever.

This Republican wave at the state level came at exactly the right time for maximum impact. As the states redistrict based on the 2010 census, Republicans will control the process in key states and will gerrymander the lines to favor their candidates.

Obama will find the 2012 map slightly more difficult. His upset victories in normally GOP states such as Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia will be hard to repeat with the political levers in Republican hands.

Peter WielhouwerAssociate Professor of Political Science, Western Michigan University :

In terms of general partisan patterns, Republicans fared quite well following the 2010 census. Blue states, such as New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Illinois were losers, while red states, such as Texas (with a bullet!), Georgia, Utah and South Carolina were winners.

What makes the GOP real winners, though is their control of upcoming state legislatures in the losing states (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Missouri, for heavy influence for six of 12 reductions) and in the gaining states (Texas, Floria, Georgia, South Carolina, Arizona, Utah, for heavy influence for seven of 12 increases). Dems will only control three state legislatures losing states (Massachusetts, New Jersey, Illinois for three seats) and two states gaining seats (Washington and Nevada, two seats).

The big caveat is where, and in what demographic groups within the losing and winning states, population shifts occurred, which, as far as I can tell, hasn't been released yet by the census. Growth in urban areas in minority populations will tend to benefit Democrats, while loss in those same places and people in the losing states may hurt them, especially if the losses took place in places like downstate New York, Philadelphia, or Boston. The mix of the state legislative control and intra-state population changes will determine the mix of packing and cracking that takes place in the sure-to-be gerrymandered 2012 congressional elections.

Democrats will try to downplay the effect of the redistricting results, but the fact is that redistricting generally has a significant effect on the following election. Incumbents that didn’t lose their seats will be running for re-election in districts that include new areas they’ve never represented; while President Obama will face a significantly more difficult electoral vote environment.

As it stands now, Obama will net six fewer electoral college votes if he wins every state he carried in 2008. That means that the Republican nominee gains a slight advantage before the campaign begins. In addition to facing a more Republican map, Obama will face the lingering effects of the recession and dissatisfaction with his liberal agenda – a scenario that ceded control of Congress to Republicans in 2010.

Damon CannAssistant Professor of Political Science, Utah State University :

The population shifts to red-leaning states would not have been as significant an issue if it hadn't been for the Republican success in state legislatures in 2010. Of the states gaining seats, Republicans control the state legislatures in all but Washington and Nevada, meaning Republicans will tend to get the advantage in drawing districts for these new seats.

Many of the states losing seats will also have Republican-controlled legislatures (Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Michigan) or split party control across the two state legislative chambers (Iowa, Louisiana). These are the states where we're most likely to see two Democratic incumbents pitted against each other.

I would like to dissent from the premise of the question. For Republicans to gain a lot of seats in the House because of the shifting population, we have to assume that the Red States with population gains are gaining Republican voters. The evidence is, at best, mixed. As a general matter, carving up a state into more legislative districts generally helps the state’s minority party; losing seats helps the majority party. Not by much, but some.

More important, in four of the states that are gaining - Texas, Florida, Arizona, and Nevada - at least 40% of the population gain comes from the growth in the number of Hispanics. In Texas, it’s nearly 2/3 of the growth. Depending on how these gains are distributed across each state - and how the (Democratic) Justice Department scrutinizes the redistricting plans in pre-clearance states - why are we not assuming the possibility of Democratic gains in these states because of redistricting? Certainly, Republican legislatures will try to impose a partisan gerrymander, but they will be constrained in what they can do.

Obama’s political worries are much larger than anything these shifts produce. It certainly makes Florida and Nevada bigger prizes. However, the fact that Ohio is still most likely the pivotal state in the Electoral College - a state that is losing two electoral votes - points out that the electoral calculus is not going to be significantly driven by this news.

It is clear to me that state legislators are effectively self-dealing when they draw their own districts, and there are non-partisan remedies that could mitigate the worst redistricting excesses. I’m more interested in the possibility for 2011 that states will have to contend with “crowd sourcing” of redistricting plans. State legislatures will be competing with hundreds of citizens who will also have the data, fast computers, and publicly available software to try it themselves. How will gerrymandered districts fare in the face of compelling alternatives?

My home state of New York is again losing congressional seats for the third decade in a row. We're now fourth in population behind California, Texas and Florida. With the Democrats losing control of the House in the 112th Congress, NY has even less clout. We're "blue" for more reasons than ever.

Clearly the northeast is losing population and political clout to the South and West. Those regions are also more conservative than the northeastern states. Hispanics in those states will be the swing voters (New Mexico has a Hispanic American Democratic Governor and Nevada elected a Hispanic American Republican governor).

The demographic shift may seem to favor the GOP but only in the long term. Over the long term, they may gain additional Members of Congress. In the short term, they should consolidate their gains in the mid-term elections. They should use their control of state legislatures to create districts that can elect black and Hispanic congressional representatives (e.g., Texas, Florida, South Carolina). Now is too early to start talking about net gains for either party. The recent midterm elections have demonstrated the volatility and importance of swing voters.

In New York, I can only foresee four House Members "battling each other for survival" in the regions north and west of New York City. With the state legislature divided, both parties will agree to lose one Democratic and one GOP seat apiece. A timely retirement or two could ease any intra-party tensions. But I'd bet that two recently elected GOP Congress members will face-off because none of the GOP members are ready to retire. I should reveal that I may seek a congressional run in 2012.

The Electoral College math does not change that much. The shift in congressional districts wasn't large enough to take Ohio or Pennsylvania out of play. One or both plus Florida will re-elect President Obama. Ohio becomes slightly more difficult because Gov.-elect John Kasich is a Republican. But I'm confident that the national economy will turnaround in the next 18 months thus enabling President Obama to win a second term.

The so-called conflict of interest inherent in having state legislatures drawing congressional districts is mandated in most state constitutions. I believe the elite, good government groups pushing for independent or nonpartisan redistricting have an inherent distrust of democracy. They don't trust the people or the people's representatives.

In 2011, New York State Legislature will consider creating an independent redistricting commission to create and submit reapportionment plans for the legislature to choose from or to reject. I prefer the present system that has served our state well. I don't believe that state legislatures should cede their constitutionally mandated duties to an unelected panel. The recent midterm elections demonstrated that competitiveness comes from the clash of ideas and policy positions, not political or nonpartisan gerrymandering.

I am skeptical that the projected shifts in electoral votes to Republican states will have a consequential impact on the 2012 presidential race. Much of the growth in population in these states is among Hispanics, who are solidly Democratic. This is especially evident in the mountain west, where Democrats are increasingly competitive in presidential elections. Moreover, most presidential elections are won with substantial majorities in the electoral college, well beyond the net shifts in electoral votes following the 2010 census.

As for congressional seats, Republicans will likely put a priority on retaining their 2010 gains in districts carried by Obama in 2008. If they try to reach much beyond their current numbers, they risk losing many of these newly-won districts and becoming a net loser in the redistricting sweepstakes.

Republicans probably will gain 10 electoral votes and Democrats probably will lose as many as 10 electoral votes from the reapportionment. That's a shift of 20 electoral votes. Democrats can absorb this amount of loss if Obama holds the Midwestern states he carried in 2008. If he loses a number of these states, he probably won't be reelected and the shift in electoral votes wouldn't affect the outcome.

A shift in congressional seats is harder to predict because this will be fought out state by state in the legislatures. Republicans have gained the upper hand in a number of Midwestern states by electing GOP governors and winning control of legislative bodies. The most likely outcome in these states is that two Democrats will be paired. This would not necessarily yield a GOP gain but would mean a Democratic loss.

Texas and Florida are special cases because of the Voting Rights Act. If Republicans get too greedy and don't create new Hispanic seats in Texas, their entire plan could be thrown out by the Justice Department or the courts. Overall, Republicans are helped by the shift of seats from the Rust Belt to the Sun Belt though their gain in congressional seats may not be as great as their gain in electoral votes. After my experience in Texas in 2003, I'm all for non-partisan commissions drawing districts rather than legislatures, though I don't expect that to happen most places any time soon.

Forty-one years ago, Kevin Phillips, a young assistant to Attorney General John Mitchell, authored a seminal political analysis concluding that the migration of white conservative populations from the Frostbelt states of the North and Midwest to the Sunbelt states of the South and West would produce a new Republican majority.

Phillips probably should have accounted for the great surge in black participation and voting in the South. And he would have looked even more prescient had he been able to predict Watergate, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the candidacy of H. Ross Perot, the unsuccessful attempt to impeach Bill Clinton and the terrible muddle George W. Bush found himself in when he took on the task of reforming the regime in Baghdad. These events all had the greatest negative impact on the GOP.

Still, Phillips had most of it right.

Between 1968 and 2008, the GOP won seven presidential contests while the Democrats had to settle for four. What's more, the Democratic Party found itself struggling for and often losing battles to control the House and Senate. Before that, the Hill, with only rare exception, had been so solidly in Democratic hands they practically had to instruct the GOP how to recognize the Capitol.

It is fair to say that next to a new plunge in employment, the last statistics the Democrats wanted to hear consisted of new information of population gains in the predominantly Republican south and west and new population falls in the by now predictable Rust belt states of the Northeast. Moreover, the census virtually locks into place existing Republican advantages based on earlier rounds of census gains and political gerrymandering.

Would our republic be better off if , say, impartial commissions did the districting while the two parties concentrated on winning voters? Sure it would. And we would be better off without hooligans, "homer" referees and hockey fights.

The gain in population in some southern states is largely due to Hispanic immigration and birth rates. But this is a Democrat-leaning group. So not clear that the gain in seats will necessarily strengthen Republicans.

Demography is destiny: the Census population gains in border states means that Republicans will pay a political price for antagonizing multi-status immigrant families with their opposition to the DREAM Act and other commonsense immigration reforms. Once again, the race for the House, Senate and White House will go through the west and southwest, where immigrant voters just stopped the 2010 red tide at the Rockies.

People don't change their politics because they change their place of residence. Just because more people are moving to Texas doesn't mean they are all going to start watching Fox, buying trucks and joining the local Bible church as soon as they cross the Red River.

People's political affiliation is quite solid and unchanging — according to Yale's Donald Green, it's more like an attachment to a religion or a sports team than anything else. "The typical ebb and flow of political fortunes associated with scandal, war and economic performance tend to have little enduring influence on the partisan identities of voters," Green wrote in "Partisan Hearts and Minds". Certainly, a little move from Vermont to Houston wouldn't affect anyone's political affiliation. Movers pack their partisanship on the Mayflower truck and bring it with them.

Democrats do tend to move to be with other Democrats, however. And that's why cities here in Texas are growing more Democratic.

If you really want to know how these new districts will vote, look to see where the new residents came from.

Redistricting without politics is akin to an ocean without water; an oxymoron.

With few exceptions, evicting legislatures from redistricting merely endows some other political, agenda driven-body – unusually one wholly unanswerable to the people – with the power. In New Jersey, that turned out to be our Supreme Court, which never misses an opportunity to impose its political whim upon the populace. Often, it’s the ideologues in the Justice Department, insisting on inane districts to ensure the election of the “right” people.

Sure, philosopher kings would draw compact, equal, competitive districts, resulting in elections which actually measure the popular mood. (To the extent those often competing goals can be harmonized.) But philosopher kings are in short supply, and none of the available substitutes arrives without ideological or partisan baggage.

History will see the period from 2000 to 2010 as one that included tremendous economic and social transformation. The new map indicates both migration into the U.S. (large growth in states with substantial Latino population) and migration within the U.S. (a move to the sunbelt).

In both cases, people are going where the jobs are and where the labor markets are fluid. This map from the National Right to Work Committee provides an interesting point of comparison with the census map. Two RTW states lost one seat each (LA + IA) and one non-RTW states gained a seat (WA). Louisiana is an exception with the Katrina experience, shifting people to TX in all likelihood, in addition to its unique levels of corruption.

The House Republicans will make small gains in two ways. First, they will gain because the majority of the states adding seats lean Republican, while the majority of the states losing seats lean Democratic. Second, after the 2010 election the Republicans are in a stronger position than the Democrats to draw the districts in their favor. However, most of the research indicates that the parties have had only limited success in gaining seats through partisan gerrymandering.

This small shift of seats from reapportionment to Republican-leaning states will also give the Republicans a little more power in the Electoral College. However, this gain will probably be too small to have much of an impact on President Obama's reelection chances.

Finally, whereas I believe it would be useful for several more states to shift to nonpartisan redistricting commissions, I think the results would not be nearly as significant as the commission supporters predict.

Washington media are burying the lede. Let's put aside the electoral implications of the census data release and look at the bigger picture. There has been an enormous population shift from traditional Blue States governed by a failed liberal dogma toward traditional Red States where conservatism is creating jobs, lowering taxes, preventing social decline and creating economic freedom.

Liberals should stop worrying about the Electoral College and instead focus on why their policies are chasing Americans away from the places they govern.

Michele L. SwersGeorgetown University Associate Professor of American Government :

Redistricting is an inherently political process and the shift of population away from Democratic strongholds to Republican leaning states in the South and West clearly gives them an advantage that is compounded by their victories in state legislatures and governor's races in 2010.

However, unpredictable national forces will also leave their mark. Despite Republican control of the redistricting process in Pennsylvania at the beginning of the decade, Democrats made great gains in Pennsylvania in 2006 and 2008 followed by losses in 2010. In Texas, DeLay's mid-decade redistricting has paid off for Republicans. Conventional wisdom says that there will be more open seats and competitive races right after redistricting and then incumbents solidify their holds on districts and races become less competitive over the decade. This was true with the elections of 1992 and 1994 followed by incumbent friendly years in 1996 and 1998 but we saw the opposite trend after the 2000 redistricting with little change in the 2002 election and fiercely competitive races in 2006, 2008, and 2010.

Many blame partisan redistricting for the increased polarization of the parties and politics and call for independent commissions to draw the lines. California will experiment with this in this cycle as a commission redraws their highly gerrymandered map. However, states that utilize commissions do not appear to have more competitive races or less polarized parties. The Senate, which continues to become more polarized is not subject to redistricting since members represent statewide constituencies. It is likely that the current primary system where voter turnout is low and ideological activists dominate contributes more to partisan polarization than redistricting processes.

The new census data is a real challenge to the Democratic Party. Many state legislatures have newly elected Republican majorities.The gain in seats favors the Republican Party as they are in many states that are Republican strongholds. But reappotionment is a strange business. District lines can be drawn to favor a particular party but if national trends go the wrong way, the in-party can lose seats, even with a carefully crafted plan.This year, many good government groups are agitating for the appointment of an independent commission to draw the new federal and state districts but legislators would rather give up their firstborn before they cede that power to an outside body.

While the census numbers appear to make the reelecton of President Obama a little harder, the 2012 election will depend on who his opponent is. If the economy turns around and things look brighter, Obama will be an odd-on favorite to get reelected.

The 2010 Census marks a notable shift in American history. In every census since California was admitted to the union in 1850, the Golden State has gained at least one seat in the House of Representatives and often gained several seats. That string is now broken: the 2010 census shows that California has not gained enough population in the past decade to gain even one House seat.

This is quite astonishing given California’s role as the leading economic driver of the nation for much of the past century. It is even more astonishing when California’s assets are considered: overflowing natural resources; fertile soils; mild and appealing climates; topnotch highways, water projects, and ports; stunning natural beauty; and an amazing amalgam of creative and entrepreneurial people who have come from all over the world to participate in the California Dream. California had it all and had more of it than any other state.

The 2010 Census confirms that that era is now over. California’s unprecedented upward arc has peaked and the state is in economic freefall. It is incredibly sad to see what is happening, but there is no mystery about it. Californians through their elected officials have decided to kill their economy. It’s not primarily the taxes or the spending. It’s the regulations: layer upon layer of environmental regulations; and on top of that global warming regulations to raise energy prices.

The regulatory strangulation of California’s economy is an ugly sight, painful to behold. But we need to look at it squarely and draw the right conclusions, because, as has often been noticed, California is America’s political trendsetter.

You second question gets to the heart of the matter. Allowing politicians to select their voters is the worst conflict if interest in our political system. The deliberate creation of "safe seats" violates the democratic principle. If the "no labels" crowd wanted to do something of value, they would take this one on instead of trying to get partisan hacks who feel themselves unaccountable to treat ideological opposites with civility.

Christmas came early for Speaker Boehner and the Republicans. The map looks like an easy pick up of 9 or 10 seats for the Republicans (4 in TX, 2 in FL, 1 in UT, GA, and SC, maybe 1 more from AZ). Not all of these new seats will go for the Republicans. I suspect a majority of the uptick in TX and the downgrade in New Orleans is due to the post-Katrina diaspora so a solid one vote from Texas will probably belong to a Democrat, and the other states the population shift is in the major cities and will be more likely to elect Democrats.

However, you're trading in a solid liberal reliable Democratic vote from New York or Ohio and now trading it for a less reliable, more conservative Democratic Vote from Florida, Texas, or Georgia.

The bigger story is the Electoral College. President Obama should do what LeBron James did and trade in some quality time in Cleveland, Ohio (-2) for some quality time down in Miami (+2). The upshot for President Obama is that with the Northeast losing so many seats the likelihood of a primary challenge just went down.

When Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) retires from the House in early January it will be the first time since 1947 — when John F. Kennedy became a congressman from Massachusetts — that no member of his family will hold a federal office.

My family always believed that politics is an honorable profession. They clearly did make a big difference in political office. My hope is that one of my nieces or nephews will one day decide to run. There are many good ways to serve. Many members of my family are involved in service in very effective ways. We all heard St. Luke’s admonition that to those who much is given much is expected.

Now I’m involved with American Bridge – an effort to make sure Democrats can be competitive on all fronts. We were outspent in the last election and we need to be are equipped.

The only Kennedy left in public office after Patrick departs will be Bobby Shriver, councilmember in my city of Santa Monica. I believe he has further electoral plans, but more likely for state office than federal office. The nation's body politic will be poorer because of the departures of all the Kennedys from federal office. Love 'em or hate 'em, they have provided us nearly 60 years of principled, progressive leadership -- not to mention charisma, family dramas and tragedy.

Few families have contributed as much to the American political scene as the Kennedy family. Indeed, I can think of no American family who has served so long or in so many varied capacities in the body politic.

However, the future of a great nation is not decided by one man's -- or one family's -- contribution, but by the sum total of those who serve, and those who we serve. Any of us who are honored to serve can hope for no more than to serve well, and leave our nation a little better for having been there. Whether the family is named Kennedy or Roosevelt, or Smith or Jones, to leave a legacy of service is a good thing and if that legacy includes several generations of service, it should always be honored, and perhaps missed.

The most interesting aspect of the departure of the Kennedy political dynasty is its timing in American history. Just as the symbol of American liberal power exits stage left, so enters the Main Street American tea party, stage right.

For 63 years, the Kennedy clan served as the royal family of the Ruling Class. Their ceaseless crusade to expand the role of government has run counter to the center-right nature of America's people, and has served as a familial snapshot of the move toward statism and crony politics. As the sun sets on this dynasty, it rises on a popular movement opposed to the practices of yesteryears's statesmen and motivated by a demand for small government and liberty.

The elites in Washington and the media worked hard to promote their liberal champions, going to great lengths to both hide the sordid details and exaggerate the romance. Through now-iconic pictures, video and soundbites, they artfully crafted an illusion of a personal connection between the Kennedys and the American people. And over the the six decades that the family played their role in this American drama, they certainly succeeded in capturing the imagination of the nation, garnering the title of America's Camelot - a sort of royal dynasty of old.

But our Grand Experiment does not flourish under the Kennedy ways. The tea party and the American people are now on stage and they will play the lead in this next exciting act. The Kennedy political dynasty, and all it represents, will not be missed.

Brett Favre's consecutive starts streak ended this year. Cal Ripken, Jr. , who broken Lou Gehrig's iron man streak, ended his in 2001. Life in America went on. Somewhere a new mark is beginning. Someday, in the not-too-distant future, a new Kennedy will pick up the baton and restart the family tradition of service to our nation. Our nation has been fortunate to have this remarkable family guide us from the Cold War era into the 21st century. Their losses, sacrifices and triumphs mirrored that of every American family. And every family deserves a rest.

As a Democratic elected official in Massachusetts and long-term political activist here, the leadership of members of the Kennedy family will be sorely missed. "Dynasty" does not define what the call to public service and politics brought to the people of Massachusetts and the country.

Members of the Kennedy family have brought a sigificant call for justice, humanity and fairness to the political table. In these difficult days, I know that I miss those clear voices.

I have long been a Republican. But I have always been a Republican. The whole point of the American Revolution was to put “dynasties” in the trash bin of history.

Washington did not inflict his relatives on the American government. Nepotism, titles and rank are the enemy of liberty and of merit.

I have endorsed a constitutional amendment that would forbid any appointed or elected government official in the United States from being immediately followed in that office by an family member.

Present limitations on campaign contributions have greatly increased the relative value of name ID. They benefit not only the incumbents — which was of course the goal — but such campaign finance limits also give millions of dollars of advantage to the namesakes of incumbents: children, wives and siblings. The greatest beneficiaries of such laws have been the idiot children of politicians.

Clearly the American Revolution’s work is yet unfinished, but Patrick Kennedy leaving is progress.

The legacy of the Kennedys after six decades in Washington is a combination of three liberal ideals: the advancement of civil rights for all Americans, the advocacy of health care as a fundamental right and not a privilege, and the nobility of public service in a democracy.

In many ways, the Kennedy dynasty was beneficial to the country. Many Americans consider John, Robert, and Ted Kennedy to be among the country's most significant leaders. The Kennedys helped shape many of the most important public policies of last 50 years.

However, some political analysts believe that the end of the Kennedy dynasty is a positive development for electoral politics. They feel that the success of candidates from famous political families is a major weakness of American politics. These candidates are seen as having an unfair advantage in elections. Therefore, according to this view, the decline of the Kennedy dynasty, along with the decline of all famous political families, benefits the political system.

The Kennedy family stands for the very best aspirations of progressive social policy. The vision and voice of its elders will be missed. But the Kennedy family is unlikely to be absent from federal office for too long. From Vicki Kennedy (who is rumored to be contemplating a run against Sen. Scott Brown in 2012), to Joe Kennedy, Jr. (who may himself run against Brown if Vicki Kennedy doesn't), to Joe Kennedy III (a Harvard Law graduate who could run for a House seat as early as 2012 if one opens up), there remains a long list of potential federal officeholders in the family.

The Kennedy dynasty will be missed because its decline symbolizes the difficulties of liberalism as well. The Kennedys have been a strong voice for the downtrodden over the years, but they have had difficulty extending their brand outside the Northeast and even keeping support in traditional liberal areas such as Massachusetts (Joe Kennedy gubernatorial run) and New York (Caroline Kennedy Senate candidacy). The fact they have gone from the presidency, two Senate seats, two House seats, and a few state offices down to one member (Bobby Shriver) of the Santa Monica City Council shows how far things have sled for the family. The country’s move to the right means that when you think of political dynasties today, it is the Bushs and the Pauls (Ron and Rand), not the Kennedys, who come to mind.

The greatest of the Kennedys - Jack, Bobby, Ted, Eunice - will remain an inspiration because of what they stood for as individuals and as leaders, not because they founded a short-lived (in historical terms) dynasty. In a democracy, we probably should be wary of dynasties.

The Kennedy dynasty will be greatly missed -- the political courage of Teddy, the vision of Jack, the perseverance of Bobby. However, they will be missed by my parents' generation, much like their parents' generation held the Roosevelts in such high esteem, and before them the La Follette family. For the current generation, the Kennedy family does not hold the same ethos.

New York City Mayor Bloomberg had put forth Caroline Kennedy's name for U.S. senator to replace then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, and Gov. David Paterson opted for Kirsten Gillibrand, a very competent and dedicated public servant from upstate New York, but one who carried little name recognition in downstate New York. Given Gilibrand's outstanding performance as a senator and subsequent relection, the better choice was made, but 20 years ago no one would have passed up a Kennedy.

jim wojtasiewicz (guest)
VA:

Yes, Mr. Norquist, no more "idiot children of politicians" -- no more Bushes. Just like our founders intended when we didn't have two President Adams. And speaking of our founders, how can it be that they intended state and national electoral districts to be inherently fluid and political, but they didn't intend the Constitution to be similarly fluid and political?

Linda Conley (guest)
OR:

Mr. Cooper is correct. Examine states losing people like New Jersey and Massachusetts, and you'll find liberals there rule the roost with excess taxes and regulations. Liberals say baby boomers move south where it's warm but face facts: Texas and Florida, which gained seats, are states that do not overwhelm with bureaucracy. Liberal-run states are not the future for recent college graduates whom I encourage to move to Houston where bureaucrats ain't everywhere.

Jonathan Dorsey (guest)
GA:

Note to James Carafano: Heard of the Bushes, the Roosevelts, the Harrisons, the Adamses, the Dalys, the Pauls and other multi-generational elected officials from the same family? Dynasty or legacy, it's just semantics. Surely someone from a foundation called Heritage wouldn't ignore historical fact for partisan doctrine. The Kennedys, like many other "dynasties," made a difference. Let's not quibble over terms and just recognize their impact.

Patrick Northway (guest)
IN:

Ask not what you can do for your country; but how quickly you can line your own pockets and cater to your contributors. Missed? With the passing not just of a dynasty that did, in fact, put their country first, but also of legislators, executives and adjudicators who work for the betterment of all, is it any wonder that the American people would prefer to rid themselves of the parasites in Washington? The system is not broken -- the people in it are.

Vicki Russell (guest)
PA:

We do and will miss John F. Kennedy, and Ted did a wonderful thing in leveling the playing field by giving options to kids in failing schools. Liberalism is far bigger than one family though, there are giants of the movement with names like Pericles. We need to recognize that liberalism should never be divorced from its intellectual roots, and that is what has happened, and that is what's being punished now. So take heart.

Lorenzo Davenport (guest)
GA:

The Kennedy dynasty was a flawed one. Most all the Kennedy politicos were dynamic and eloquent when promoting their causes, but many of their causes and much of their life style offended many -- a truly love/hate relationship. Their politics could be brutal if challenged. Once one traveled away from their northeastern roots, the Kennedy aura diminished, especially over middle America and the South. Their demise may be missed by some, but not all.

Mike Gorman (guest)
OH:

The first thing that pops into my head when I think of the Kennedy family is "entitlement." They felt they were entitled to public office. The first thing that pops into my head when I think of entitlement is "liberalism." Liberals feel they are entitled to money and property that does not belong to them so they can give it to people who have none.

Tom Genin (guest)
CT:

Aspirations of a matriarch devolved into entitlements of the progeny. Further evidence that the political greatness of a few is not guaranteed in the generations that follow. When I was five, I was reading a book about the presidents and cried as I came to understand the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Now a Reagan conservative, I loath the many liberal principles that came from Kennedys, especially Teddy, but there was a loss nonetheless.

Ford O'Connell (guest)
VA:

If the 2012 election were held today, President Obama could count on at best 200 electoral votes. For Obama to win reelection his campaign needs to lock in 70 additional electoral votes. Today’s census data indicates that the real prizes in 2012 will be Florida overall, and the Hispanic vote in Nevada and New Mexico. If the GOP is to stop the Obama machine in its tracks, Marco Rubio might need to be part of the 2012 ticket.

Hank Mack (guest)
CA:

Reapportionment in California will change dramatically since that job has been taken out of the legislatures hand and given to an independent commission. One of its goals is to make the districts conform as much as possible to cities and county borders. I live in a district that is currently about 50 miles wide and several hundred miles long. It was designed to keep the Republicans bunched up and out of current Democratic districts.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.